1 2025:CGHC:15721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 38 of 2023 1 - Pilan S/o Late Jaymangal Aged About 59 Years Caste- Kanwar, Occupation - Service, R/o Village Kevri, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2 - Khushiyali S/o Late Jaymangal Aged About 60 Years Caste- Kanwar, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village Kevri, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh 3 - Baldev S/o Late Chetan Aged About 60 Years Caste- Kanwar, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village Andhla, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1 - Veersay S/o Biltu Aged About 80 Years Caste- Kanwar, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village Kevri, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.1) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Mandvi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 03.4.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.04.07 10:38:10 +0530 2 judgment and decree dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Third Upper District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur)(CG) in Civil Appeal No.13-A/2022, whereby the first appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.6.2022 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikaspur Distt. Surguja (CG) in Civil Suit No.111A/2018, wherein, the civil suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of their absolute title and possession in respect of land mentioned in ‘Schedule A’ (hereinafter referred as ‘the suit land’) and grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No.1, was allowed. (For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court) 3. Facts of the case, as projected by the plaintiffs are that, the plaintiffs filed civil suit for declaration of their absolute title and possession over the suit land mentioned in ‘Schedule A’ and also to grant permanent injunction in respect of those suit land against defendant No.1, stating inter alia that the suit land mentioned in ‘Schedule A’ and land mentioned in ‘Schedule B’, annexed with the plaint, were owned by Ranbaj (grand-father of the plaintiffs) and Biltu (father of defendant No.1), who were real brothers, respectively. It is stated that the land mentioned in ‘Schedule A’ is self acquired property of their grand-father Ranbaj, but Biltu, who was father of defendant No.1, also got entered his name in the revenue record of the suit land in the year 1954- 55. Thereafter, defendant No.1/Veersay filed application for partition before revenue authorities, which was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), but appeal, preferred by him before Commissioner, Surguja Division, has been allowed in his favour. Against which, the plaintiffs filed civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.111A/2018, seeking relief of their absolute right/title over the suit land mentioned in ‘Schedule A’ annexed with the plaint 3 along with permanent injunction against defendant No.1. 4. Defendant No.1 Veersay filed his written statement stating inter alia that the suit land belongs to Genda Kanwar, who was father of late Ranbaj Kanwar and late Biltu Kanwar, therefore, in revenue records (Adhikar Abhilekh) of 1954-55, the suit land was recorded in the name of Ranbaj and Biltu, as such, they were having equal share on it. It has further been pleaded that subsequently, on being application filed for partition, Patwari had partitioned the suit land disproportionately, which was challenged by defendant No.1 before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Udaypur, Surguja but the same was dismissed on 26.4.2017 on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. But the appeal bearing Revenue Case No.183/A- 27/2016-17 preferred by defendant No.1 against the above said order was allowed by the Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur and order dated 26.4.2017 passed by SDO (Revenue), Udaypur in Appeal Revenue Case No.90/A-27/2015-16 and namantaran No.15 dated 30.7.2013 were rejected by the Commissioner. Thus, since Ranbaj and Biltu were having equal share over the suit land, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to get ½ share of suit land, i.e. share of Ranbaj and being son of Biltu, defendant No.1 is having ½ share of it. 5. The State is formal party in the instant civil suit. 6. The learned trial Court on the basis of pleading of both the parties, framed only two issues and after recording evidence of both the parties, considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them and allowed the civil suit in favour of the plaintiffs on the ground that as per the record, the suit land was owned by Ranbaj only and his brother Biltu had no right over the suit land, thereby granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs. 7. First appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.13-A/2022 filed by defendant No.1 4 Veersay was allowed by the first appellate Court on the ground that in revenue records, namely survey settlement 1954-55/Adhikar Abhilekh, name of Ranbaj and Biltu were recorded as they were real brothers and as per the Kistbandi Khatoni (Ex-P/4), inadvertently name of Biltu was left in the settlement documents, therefore, his name was mutated along with Ranbaj in the revenue records in the year 1955. Thus, both of them were having equal share over the suit land, as such, the plaintiffs, who were legal representatives of Ranbaj, are not having absolute right/title over the suit land. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The plaintiffs have filed certified copy of Surguja State settlement of the year 1940 (Ex-P/3), which shows that the suit land was recorded in the name of Ranbaj, S/o. Genda Kanwar. Undisputedly, Biltu was the real brother of Ranbaj. As per the certified copy of Kistbandi Khatoni of the year 1954-55 (Ex-P/4), since Biltu was the real brother of Ranbaj and son of Genda and his name was left in settlement documents and he was having equal share over the suit land, therefore, name of Biltu was recorded in pursuance of order dated 08.4.1956 passed by revenue authorities, in revenue records. Thereafter suit land mentioned in ‘Schedule A’ in the plaint was continuously recorded in the names of Ranbaj and Biltu and as per the certified copy of Kistbandi Khatoni of the year 1993-94, it seems that after death of Biltu, names of his son Veersay (defendant No.1) and his widow Ghusi were recorded along with Ranbaj. 10. Aforesaid documents have also been proved by the witnesses of plaintiffs and defendants. Having considered the aforesaid documents, it cannot be said that Ranbaj or his Lrs. are having absolute right/title over the 5 suit land mentioned in ‘Schedule A’, rather from the evidence available on record, it is found that right from 1954-55, the suit land was recorded in the joint names of Ranbaj and his brother Biltu and after death of Biltu, names of his son Veersay and widow were recorded in revenue record, which is evident from the certified copy of Kistbandi Khatoni of 1993-94, though it has not been got exhibited by the trial Court, but being certified copy, it is very much readable in evidence. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, as such, I do not find any substantial question of law to be involved in the instant case. 12. Thus, since no question of law is found to be framed, the appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. 13. A Decree be drawn accordingly. 14. The parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini